Examining substantive fairness as a basis for binding-character of contract

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Private Law, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Judicial law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Judicial law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Law, Faculty of Judicial law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

From a legal point of view, one cannot expect the unfair distribution of contractual resources to be enforced. For the fair distribution of these resources, two theories of substantive fairness & procedural fairness have been proposed. According to the theory of substantive fairness, a fair criterion should be considered in advance for the outcome of the contract and care should be taken that the parties to the contract do not violate this criterion. Contrary to this theory, procedural fairness whose followers claim that there is no consensus on a particular type of distribution, try to control the formation process of the contract to make it fair, rather than considering the outcome of the contract. The main a priori criterion for fair distribution proposed in substantive fairness is the application of just price. There are serious doubts as to whether a just price can be considered as a good basis for making contracts binding and enforceable, because the justification for the need to a certain type of distribution under the name of justice is difficult due to disagreement over the concept of justice in the modern world. At the same time, accepting such a basis will make it impossible to justify the invalidity of other illegitimate contracts concluded at a just price. Of course, assuming the acceptance of the theory of substantive fairness, specified legal effects arise from the contract in order to restitute the situation of injured party, which , in turn, face with many difficulties especially in the case of price fluctuation.

Keywords

References

انصاری، مرتضی بن محمد (1415ق).  القضاء و الشهادات. قم: کنگره بزرگداشت شیخ اعظم انصاری.
انصاری، مهدی (1393). تحلیل اقتصادی حقوق قراردادها. تهران: انتشارات جاودانه جنگل.
جعفری لنگرودی، ‌‌محمدجعفر (1380). فلسفه حقوق مدنی. تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، ‌‌محمدجعفر (1382). فلسفه اعلی. تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، ‌‌محمدجعفر (1386). سیستم‌شناسی در علم حقوق. تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1391). الفارق: دائرۀ‌المعارف عمومی حقوق. تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، ‌‌محمد‌جعفر (1393). فلسفه عمومی‌حقوق بر پایه اصالت عمل تئوری موازنه. تهران: گنج دانش.
حلبی، حمزة‌ بن علی بن زهرة (1417ق). غنیة النزوع إلى علمی الأصول والفروع. قم: مؤسسة الامام الصادق (‌علیه‌السلام).
حلى، محمد بن منصور بن ‌احمد (1410‍‌ق‌)‌. السرائر الحاوی لتحریر الفتاوى‌. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامى وابسته به جامعه مدرسین حوزه علمیه قم‌.
زراعت، عباس (1389). قاعده قرعه. فصلنامه حقوق مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، 40(101)، صص. 91-107.
شهید ثانی، زین‌الدین ‌بن ‌على (1410ق)‌. الروضة‌ البهیة‌ فی‌شرح اللمعة الدمشقیة. قم: کتابفروشی داوری.
شهید ثانی، زین‌الدین ‌بن ‌على (1413‍‌ق‌‌). مسالک ‌الأفهام ‌إلى تنقیح شرائع‌ الإسلام‌. قم: مؤسسة ‌المعارف‌ الإسلامیة.‌
عادل، مرتضی (1389). قواعد انصاف در نظام کامن‌لا. نشریه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، 4(1)، صص. 179-192.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1389). قانون مدنی در نظم حقوقی کنونی. تهران: میزان.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1390). اعمال حقوقی قرارداد ـ ایقاع. تهران: سهامی انتشار.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1392). قواعد عمومی قراردادها. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
کانت، ایمانوئل (1394). بنیاد مابعدالطبیعه ‌اخلاق. ترجمه حمید عنایت. تهران: خوارزمی.
گایر، پل (1396). راهنمای خواندن کانت بنیادگذاری مابعدالطبیعه اخلاق. ترجمه ‌سید علی ‌نقوی‌نسب. تهران: ترجمان علوم ‌انسانی.
مصطفوی، محمدکاظم (بی‌تا). القواعد مائة قاعدة فقهیة معنی ومدرکا وموردا. قم: مؤسسة‌ النشر ‌الاسلامی ‌التابعة لجماعة ‌المدرسین بقم ‌المشرفة.
مطیعی، انسیه و البرزی‌ورکی، مسعود (1397). بررسی تطبیقی اصل انصاف و اصول عدل و انصاف. نشریه پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، 22(3)، صص. 137-161.
مکارم شیرازی، ناصر (1424ق). کتاب نکاح. قم: انشارات مدرسه علی ابن ابی‌طالب ‌(علیه‌السلام).
نجفى، على‌ بن‌ جعفر (1422ق‌). شرح‌ خیارات ‌اللمعه. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامى.‌
Aquinas, St. Th. (1981). Summa Theologica. Roman Catholic Church: Christian Classics.
Aristotle, D. R., & Brown, L. (2009). The Nicomachean Ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, R. E. (1986). A Consent Theory of Contract. Columbia Law Review, 86(2), pp.v269-321.
Beatson, J.; Burrows, A. & Cartwright, J. (2010). Anson's Law of Contract (29th ed.). US: Oxford University Press.
Benson, P. (2001). The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law) (1st ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bix, B. H. (2012). Contract Law-Rules, Theory, and Context. US: Cambridge University Press.
Code civil. Dernière modification: 2021-12-08. Edition: 2021-12-08. Production de droit.org. https://codes.droit.org/PDF/Code%20civil.pdf
De Roover, R. (1958). The concept of the just price: theory and economic policy. The Journal of Economic History, 18(4), pp. 418-434.
Eisenberg, M. A. (1982). The Bargain Principle and Its Limits. Harvard Law Review, 95, 4.
Epstein, R. A. (1975). Unconscionability: A critical reappraisal. The Journal of Law and Economics, 18(2), pp. 293-315.
Fleischacker, S. (2004). A Short History of Distributive Justice. US: Harvard University Press.
Fried, Ch. )2015(. Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation (Second ed.). US: Oxford University Press.
Gordley, J. (1981). Equality in Exchange, 69 Cal. L. Rev., 1587-1656, Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol69/iss6/1.
Gordley, J. (1993). The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine. US: Clarendon Press.
Hobbes, Th. (1997). Leviathan (Vol. 2). UK: Touchstone.
Kronman, A. T. (1978). Mistake, disclosure, information, and the law of contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), pp. 1-34.
Kronman, A. T. (1980). Contract Law and Distributive Justice. The Yale Law Journal, 89(3), pp. 472-511.
Leff, A. A. (1967). Unconscionability and the Code. The Emperor's New Clause. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 115(4), pp. 485-559.
Lovett, F. (2011). John-Rawls's A theory of justice-a reader's guide. Continuum International Publishing Group, US.
Lucy, W. (2007). Philosophy of private law. US: Oxford University Press.
Mauss, Marcel (1966). The‌ Gift the Form and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by Ian Gunnison, Cohen & West Ltd., London.
Murphy, J. B. (2002). Equality in exchange. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 47, pp. 85-121.
Nozick, R. (2001). Anarchy State and Utopia. US: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pakaluk, M. (2005). Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics: An introduction. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, D. (2010). A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (2ed ed.). US: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Radin, M. J. (1987). Market-Inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100(8), pp. 1849-1937.
Ramsay, M. (2006). The Buyer/Seller Asymmetry: Corrective Justice and Material Non-Disclosure. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 56(1), pp. 115-149.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness_ A Restatement. US: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Saprai, P. (2010). Against Equality of Exchange. King's Law Journal, 21(1), pp. 71-95.
Smith, S. A. & Atiyah, P. S. (2006). Atiyah's Introduction to the Law of Contract (6th ed.). US: OUP Oxford.
Story, J. (1892), Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, Stevens and Haynes. US: C.C. Little & J. Brown 1846.
Trebilcock, M. J. (1993). The Limits of Freedom of Contract. US: Harvard University Press.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, 2010-2011 Edition Issued in December 2010, The American Law Institute National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
The Journal of Islamic Law Research
Volume 23, Issue 3 - Serial Number 57
September 2022
Pages 401-435

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 04 January 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics